The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Punishment on the accused shall be determined by a fine of KRW 500,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles or misunderstanding of the defendant (guilty part) entered into a contract with the purpose of carrying out a specific service called a parcelling-out agency for three months, and the F did not raise any objection as to the fact that the contract was not prepared, the business income tax deduction was paid as remuneration and the four insurance was not purchased. This is recognized as a practice in the case of the sales agency employees, the payment was made much more than the general sales agency employees, the payment was made to the sales agency employees, and the place of work is free from time to time to place, and the place of work is flexible, and thus, it cannot be viewed as a worker under the Labor Standards Act.

In addition, the F, before the end of June, 2017, committed an act that damages the trust of the Defendant Company, thereby notifying the Defendant of his dismissal. However, the F, due to the F’s circumstances, provided a lodging room by the end of July, 2017 and provided an opportunity to complete work and dispose of the body. As such, the F’s labor relationship was terminated at the end of June, 2017.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misunderstanding of facts.

2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

B. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts, although the defendant was found to have to pay 5,667,00 won, which is 1% of the sales price, to K, based on evidence such as the prosecutor’s statement (not guilty part of the grounds for appeal, misunderstanding of facts) and other evidence, as the piece rates based on the Eriart sales sex of K. The court below determined otherwise.

2. The lower court, on the prosecutor’s assertion, determined that it was insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant was obligated to pay performance rates to F in view of all the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, and is not guilty of this part of the charges.